Navigate:

War funds adrift in Hill fights

Text Size

-

+

reset

“It’s bizarre,” House Minority Leader John A. Boehner (R-Ohio) told Politico on Tuesday as Democrats scrambled to finalize a revised bill.
John Shinkle

A massive wartime spending bill has become the Flying Dutchman of this Congress, sailing back and forth between the House and Senate like a doomed phantom ship, never able to get home to the White House for President Bush’s veto — or signature.

“It’s bizarre,” House Minority Leader John A. Boehner (R-Ohio) told Politico on Tuesday as Democrats scrambled to finalize a revised bill. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.), one of a handful of lawmakers at the helm, admitted that that the multibillion-dollar package has become a “moving target,” even for him.

The devastating flooding in the Midwest brought the White House to the Capitol on Tuesday, with administration officials seeking $1.8 billion in disaster aid. But the core structure of the bill hasn’t changed dramatically since Democrats first announced the three major pieces in early May: $162 billion-plus in defense spending, new aid for the unemployed, and a greatly expanded GI education benefit for veterans returning from Iraq and Afghanistan.

After early veto threats, the White House has softened its stance on both the GI Bill and jobless assistance. And the latest House version is expected to move closer to the administration’s demands by dropping the most contentious policy restrictions regarding U.S. policy in Iraq.

But House and Senate Democrats are so at odds with one another that House Appropriations Committee Chairman Dave Obey (D-Wis.) predicted that what passes the House this week will very likely come back from the Senate yet again with changes.

“Right now you have the ideologues in the administration. You have certain groups in the Senate who want to have a fight,” Obey told Politico. “We can’t seem to get either side to be as flexible as they need to be.”

“It looks to me like both the administration and the Senate want to have a fight rather than get things done,” Obey added. “In the House, we’re trying to get things done. But even then, we end up with elements in both caucuses who want to have another fight.”

This is very much the case with the new GI education benefit, which commands broad bipartisan support but still provokes a fight over whether the costs should be offset with new taxes. The initial 10-year price tag was pegged at almost $52 billion, and this could grow by another $10 billion, given a new provision — backed by the White House — that would allow enlisted personnel and officers to transfer their education benefits to their families.

The Congressional Budget Office has estimated that the bill would more than double the current education benefit available to military personnel after their first enlistment, typically four years. The present value of this benefit will go from $40,000 to $90,000 — far more than was available after the Vietnam War. But given the strong votes already in Congress, Democrats are reluctant to trim this expansion, even to pay for the new transferability provision.

The most ticklish political issue has been a proposed 13-week extension of unemployment benefits for millions of people without jobs nationwide who have exhausted the 26 weeks of aid typically available to them at the state level. Here, too, the White House has shown signs of shifting, and Boehner seems hungry for some deal. But May’s jump in the unemployment rate also sent a jolt through Democratic ranks, making it harder, it seems, to consider a compromise.

House Republicans last week embraced a more targeted plan that would cover just 20 states but still reach more than half the workers expected to benefit from the Democratic plan. One question now is whether a compromise can be reached that would allow some extension of aid for the remaining 30 states — albeit not for the full 13 weeks.

“There’s room, if both sides sit down and quit posturing on it, to get an agreement,” said Sen. John Thune (R-S.D.). “I can’t speak for the White House, but it’s probably an issue that is not going to go away. And as the economy continues to soften, ... I suspect more and more momentum.”

The Midwest flooding is a new element, as evidenced by the White House request Tuesday.

“Since these discussions started,” Obey said, “the unemployment numbers shocked the hell out of people, and No. 2, an act of God took place. And last time I looked, God didn’t particularly care what the hell the Congress or the White House thought. He did his own thing.”

Readers' Comments (31)

We need to concentrate on funding at home. Give the iraqis a 6-9 month time table and then we are out of there. Tell the military-industrial complex that hard times are coming for them. The cold war is over and nobody is going to be invading us. Forget about drilling for oil. Concentrate on energy indepence, repairs to our infrastructure, and universal health care. Tell Bill Gates to stop training hindoo's and concentrate on American employees. Rebuild our middle class. No more no-bid contracts for halliburton and blackwater.

I really do not think that we need to be talking about mystical beings. We need to concentrate on the present - here and now. We need to find a way to avoid spending billions and billions on a losing cause that the idiots in the White House brought on. We need to take care of our vets and our people at home.

dvmike, I totally agree. After nearly 5 1/2 years, the Iraqi government should be held accountable for not meeting the earmarks set forth by the Bush regime. It's like a rebellious child in that they are NEVER going to do what they should until they realize that the tolerance is OVER and DONE WITH! This war has drained our nation's tolerance, military, it's resources, and it's bank. We've borrowed enough money from other countries to finance this war that we have burdened countless generations with debt and ignored our own problems at home such as infrastructure, crime, education, housing, immigration, and veteran's care. This is absurd and must end. McCain, (unblievably) proposes that much of Bush's policies be CONTINUED on the road to destruction. Its obvious that he would ignore the will of the American people the same way Bush and his cronies have done. This country cannot stand 4 more years of their approaches to the problems.

THINK ::::::: Who can GUARANTEE the oil companies will not re-raise gas prices 2 years after the ban is lifted? After they get what they want -- not one can.

The only control we have is to say "NO" to oil dependence, and "YES" to alternative energy! The technology already exists! GMAC already makes and sells the Flex vehicle in Brazil, which primarily uses alternative fuel from sugar cane or natural products.

And the latest House version is expected to move closer to the administration’s demands by dropping the most contentious policy restrictions regarding U.S. policy in Iraq.

dems need to grow a pair and hold the line on this. the next president should not be bound by this congress and administration to a policy that has produced nothing but failure, grief and is bankrupting the country.

dems need to grow a pair and hold the line on this. the next president should not be bound by this congress and administration to a policy that has produced nothing but failure, grief and is bankrupting the country.

It never occurs to you that they know better and can't do what you want them to because they KNOW it's the wrong thing to do...Every president is bound by the previous Congress in their first year until they get a chance to put their own mark on legislation...liberal whining is getting really pathetic.

the Iraqi government should be held accountable for not meeting the earmarks set forth by the Bush regime.

You've never been outside the country have you? What kind of arrogance is this? The Iraqi's are not bound or obligated to jump through hoops when we snap ourr fingers. Only a liberal elitist would believe they can control the world through their personal superiority.

THINK ::::::: Who can GUARANTEE the oil companies will not re-raise gas prices 2 years after the ban is lifted? After they get what they want -- not one can.

Don't know much about basic economics, do you? The more of something there is, the lower the price. The less of something there is, the higher the price. Unless the governmnet subsidizes it (ala health care, education) then the price skyrockets because there's no market forces working to keep prices down. Unaffordable health care and education ONLY exist because of huge governmnet subsidies. The more oil we have here, the less we have to buy from elsewhere. This isn't really complicated.

What everyone seems to be missing is the massive transfer of wealth that is taking place. This transfer is of historic proportions. Wealth is flowing, no, gushing, from "The West" to the Oil Producing Countries of the Middle East. Iran and Saudi Arabia are getting fabulously wealthy, while America... well, just look at the shape we are in economically. What amazes me, too, is how many deny the connection of the current economic crisis and the invasion and occupation of Iraq. We have wreaked havoc in what used-to-be one of the largest oil produing countries. Instability in the Middle East drives UP oil prices. Have we, or have we not, made the Middle East less stable? The answer is obvious. At any rate, if this massive transfer of wealth continues unabated we will see an equally massive transfer of power and influence.

It never occurs to you that they know better and can't do what you want them to because they KNOW it's the wrong thing to do...Every president is bound by the previous Congress in their first year until they get a chance to put their own mark on legislation...liberal whining is getting really pathetic.

man your sense of history is screwed. both ronald reagan and bill clinton enacted exec orders overridiing the will of congress. the issues is that congress never challenged them on it.

the Iraqi government should be held accountable for not meeting the earmarks set forth by the Bush regime.

You've never been outside the country have you? What kind of arrogance is this? The Iraqi's are not bound or obligated to jump through hoops when we snap ourr fingers. Only a liberal elitist would believe they can control the world through their personal superiority.

dosen't matter where he's been or not! the bench marks adopted by congress are the sameones agreed to by the bush admin and al maliki's government... so un less you don't mind your WORD as counting for anything other than DUNG - they're binding. and it's only fitting that congress views the word of POTUS as such,,, oh! but wait! wasn't it bush who asked for the AUMF only as a sign of unity here at home and that he would return to the UN BEFORE ANY military against iran??

dosen't matter where he's been or not! the bench marks adopted by congress are the sameones agreed to by the bush admin and al maliki's government... so un less you don't mind your WORD as counting for anything other than DUNG - they're binding.

Goals are precisely that....only goals. Sometimes you meet them, sometimes you don't. NOT meeting them is NOT an excuse to tuck your tail between your legs and run like little cowards. You stay and work out the problems.

man your sense of history is screwed. both ronald reagan and bill clinton enacted exec orders overridiing the will of congress. the issues is that congress never challenged them on it.

Why would they? This Congress, the weakest and most incompetent in Congressional history, does not understand leadership, does not understand bipartisan cooperation and does not unerstand civil discourse and compromise. They came into office with a single agenda item - fight Bush under any and all circumstances, the country be damned! The results of that approach are clear...their place in history as the worst ever and they are singularly responsible for the duration of this conflict which would have ended long ago had we actually bee a "United" States and not had all the lefties siding with and complicitly supporting Al Qaeda. But as much as they hate Bush, they're still not going to do the stupid and idiotic things you whacko MoveOn-Daily Kos- frothing-at-the-mouth Marxists want them to do. I'll at least give them that.

shows a lack of understanding; to attack is not to invade. i don't suppose you've learned to distinguish between the two....?

Your childish isolationist distinction is lost on the 3,000 Americans and their families that died on that day because of the failed approach to terrorism now being suggested that we return to by Obama.

This Congress, the weakest and most incompetent in Congressional history, does not understand leadership, does not understand bipartisan cooperation and does not unerstand civil discourse and compromise.

dude i'm not even going to attempt this with tour overly partisan arse. i've many issues withe current dem leadership in congress and more than happy to detail them, as if i hadn't already. for you to assert a lack of will towards ending the grid lock that has existed since pubbies took controll of both houses...

DetCord: Jun. 18, 2008 - 2:08 PM EST

Goals are precisely that....only goals.

REALLY! you speak of goals, have the nerve and gall to do so? and howabout all the abandoned bush admin goals? i'm willing to cut you some slack and narrow that down to just his stated goal of the "SURGE"!

Your childish isolationist distinction is lost on the 3,000 Americans and their families that died on that day because of the failed approach to terrorism now being suggested that we return to by Obama.

and equally lost on you are the survivors of more than 4000 service members, hundreds of thousand iraqi, and why you and jmacf fail to see the obvious!!!

The results of that approach are clear...their place in history as the worst ever and they are singularly responsible for the duration of this conflict which would have ended long ago had we actually bee a "United" States and not had all the lefties siding with and complicitly supporting Al Qaeda.

I see no proof of this, but if you have any examples of anything that the current congress has done to prolong this war, short of cutting the funding, please provide them. Give some specifics which funding request they didn't pass, causing us to be in the war longer. Not speeches against the war, not questions about the legality of the war, but specific actions taken by this congress that have prolonged the war.

There short answer is, there are none. Congress has given the President every dollar he has requested. Just explain, in your twisted world, how congress has prolonged this war.